UK.. We Messed Up Letting The Government Take Our Guns..

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by ultimatelizardman

 

in reply/further reply to your posts last night, your unsubstantiated comments about gun crime in belgium or china are not really relevant to this thread about UK gun ownership, we are not talking about a general issue about gun crime in relation to gun ownership in those nations or world wide after all (and i have no interest in that), feel free to start a topic on that, a few more posts and you can do so - i expect there are plenty of belgians on these forums with whom you can discuss it, plus many other interested parties.

as to me passively limiting other people's rights to self defence with firearms via my opinion on my countries gun laws, thats just a nonsense argument unless you want to abolish laws wholesale which is an entirely different matter - we live in communities of different minded individuals which means there is always compromise in relation to what can and cant be done and how that is legislated. i expect that no one agrees with all of the limitations put on them by the various laws in place, i know i would change some laws but so what? i dont blame everyone who disagrees with me for it, i may push for change in various ways on certain issues, or i may just source my own contraband or do what i like and take it on the chin. i have in fact done this thousands of times by choice and dont feel so bad about it, and i have been smart and/or lucky/discreet enough to never get my collar felt.

re guns and the above paragraph, i suppose that my (in your logic) passive limiting of others rights to carry a gun for self defence wherever they like in my opinion therefor also passively limits someone else's ability to paranoidly and petulantly pull out a gun at percieved risks and insults... i know my country well enough i feel, and have seen how easily violence can erupt at times and am very happy that in the UK a gun is not an easy resort for every angry fool.

i think that covers it.. anything else?

OK, i will try and break down my reasoning into several points:

Firstly, i gave Belgium and China as examples because they can easily be compared to the UK; they have the same problems with rapidly increasing crime rates amongst the young, high rates of recidivism and frequent "crime tourism" due to the fact that they have similarly draconian "laws" against self-defense, leaving the productive members of their societies almost completely defenseless.

Secondly, Keeping and bearing arms for the purpose of self-defense is a fundamental human right whose purpose is the preservation of the individual's dignity and sovereignty. Neither you, the government or "the majority" have any right to strip another of his sovereignty, and his dignity, by restricting his right to choose for himself whether he needs a weapon to protect himself, his family, his property and his independence.

Thirdly, by passively supporting the violation of fundamental human rights you allow those in power (governments, the media, and the mindless herds who blindly believe the lies spewed by the two previously mentioned groups) to further violate the innate rights of innocent individuals who just want to live their lives in peace.

Fourthly, the only case in which an individual's human rights should be abrogated is one where said individual has intentionally violated the human rights of another without a legitimate motive.


Note that i am not referring to the "UN charter of human rights" which is designed to protect the immoral, but rather to the innate rights of innocent individuals under God (or under the law of mutual respect, depending on one's individual beliefs)

Originally posted by geewizz

Originally posted by EvanB
reply to post by superman2012

 

Lets take a real life example..

Tony Martin was woken up in the middle of the night by two burglers who invaded his rural home.. He shot them with a shotgun.. One of them died.. The other lived to claim compensation for his injuries..

Tony Martin got put in jail for manslaughter... For protecting his home and possesions..

Do you not see something wrong in that?

Not only was Tony Martin not ment to have a gun but he shot the burglar in the back as he was running away that's why he got sent down I can see why he did next time blow his leg off then he's not dead and the police can arrest him :/

Tony Martin was an idiot. You never shoot someone in the back, and if you do, then you deserve jail-time. Try that in the States and see if anyone sympathizes with you. I don't know anyone with guns who would do something as stupid as that.

He deserved what he got.

More violent crimes, yes, also more people than there were when we banned guns (and not many guns either).

Chances of dieing from violence, minimal, chances of dieing in gun violence, massively increased..

Just remember that.

And do not slate me with being a gun hater, i like guns and want to own one to defend my home and im talking a handgun in my bedside draw, not a shotgun for shooting ducks. Im not a mental case and ive never broken a law so i think that should be ok.

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by ChesterJohn
reply to post by EvanB

 

It's more than our guns it is the right to bear ARMS. Bear Arms is what local armories are for. Not just the military but local city armories, State armories but all are controlled by the fed. But it goes deeper than that any citizen has the right to bear arms that is to have a armory complete with all the latest arms needed to fight off any invading army or tyrannical govt.

This is one aspect that I cannot understand in the gun advocates' argument. In the nineteenth century I can see that an armed population could defend itself with rifles against tyranny or invasion because any aggressor would just be a load of other guys with rifles.

But nowadays unless you have the wherewithal and desire to own several helicopter gunships and maybe some tanks I don't see how you're going to defend yourselves. A couple of machine guns are not really going to do the job against the full might of a modern military.

Except that when you piss the government off, they don't send in the full might of a modern military, they send in a couple of thugs to 'suicide' you. They deserve a warm welcome don't they?

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by Seede

If majority of crime is committed with knives and swords and you ban knives and swords you have done nothing to prevent crime except to limit the accessibility to knives and swords. You have done nothing to mend the reason for crime.

Yeah. But if you get attacked with a sponge you're less likely to die than if you get attacked with a knife. And if you get attacked with a knife you're less likely to die than if you get attacked with a gun. There's even a guy above who seems to want guns legalised so he could shoot people who mugged him, conveniently ignoring that he would probably dead if they had used a gun. Which they might well have if they were more widely available.

Yeah, but I can kill you with a pencil. You would be extremely likely to die, in fact, I guarantee it. Shall we ban them and close stationary stores? That kind of idiotic reasoning, the belief in the innate evil of inanimate objects, leads straight to mattress-padded rooms and straight-jackets for anyone that doesn't carry a Party card.

Problem solved, I'm pleased to report you have cracked it. Well done.

reply to post by ultimatelizardman


dammit, you had to reply when it was already way past my bed time!

sorry but my head and eyes hurt and i'm way tired... i appreciate your point of view but disagree.. i dont see gun ownership improving things in the admittedly very different US and feel quite able to defend myself without a gun, but then i'd regard myself as having plenty of street smarts, a knack for dealing with folk in tense situations and a good eye for anticipating dangerous situation having lived an "interesting" life. i'm happy enough with there being few guns over here and long may it remain that way.

Originally posted by skalla
...feel quite able to defend myself without a gun, but then i'd regard myself as having plenty of street smarts, a knack for dealing with folk in tense situations and a good eye for anticipating dangerous situation having lived an "interesting" life. i'm happy enough with there being few guns over here and long may it remain that way.

In other words you're happy with the fact that the UK is an extremely dangerous place for the physically weak, the infirm and/or the highly introverted; innocent people who do not possess the traits you deem essential for survival, but would be perfectly capable of protecting themselves if they were armed, are forced to live in fear and danger because some "tough guys" feel threatened by guns

Originally posted by skalla
it was a revenge killing with an illegally held weapon, and that kind of eye for an eye gun use seems to go firmly against all the "responsible gun owner" comments i have read...

How does one do a "revenge killing" of someone who broke into your home? If the criminals did not want to be killed, they could have easily not broken into Martin's house.

On the night of 20 August 1999, two burglars – Brendon Fearon, 29, and Fred Barras, 16 – broke into Martin's house.[9] Shooting downwards in the dark, with his shotgun, loaded with birdshot, Martin evidentially shot three times towards the intruders (once when they were in the stairwell and twice more when they were trying to flee through the window of an adjacent ground floor room). Barras was hit - fatally - in the back and both sustained gunshot injuries to their legs. Both escaped through the window but Barras died at the scene.[2] Martin claimed that he opened fire after being woken when the intruders smashed a window. But his claim that he had shot at them from halfway down the stairs was apparently disproved by scientific evidence that showed he must have fired his shotgun from the doorway of a downstairs room. The prosecution accused him of lying in wait for the burglars and opening fire without warning from close range, in retribution for previous break-ins at his home.[10]

Originally posted by ultimatelizardman


In other words you're happy with the fact that the UK is an extremely dangerous place for the physically weak, the infirm and/or the highly introverted; innocent people who do not possess the traits you deem essential for survival, but would be perfectly capable of protecting themselves if they were armed, are forced to live in fear and danger because some "tough guys" feel threatened by guns

edit on 17-1-2013 by ultimatelizardman because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-1-2013 by ultimatelizardman because: (no reason given)

The UK is a dangerous place

Any comments on the stats below then!

Population USA 311m UK 62.5m so USA 4.976 times the UK population.

Lets look at murders

ALL Murders in USA 2011 total 14,612 UK 564.

USA 4.976 times UK population 25.90 times the murder rate!!!!

LETS look at GUN murders

USA 2011 8583 fig for UK updated is 51

USA 4.976 times the UK population 168.2 times more gun deaths

So whats is the thoughts on the above.

reply to post by ultimatelizardman


no, no i'm not, i really dont believe most british old or weak people would have guns, twist it that way to suit your wishes if you are annoyed about that, get angry at me if you like, but keep your gun love, and keep going around in circles if you like. more guns in britain would lead to more trouble, i really dont see lead and propellants as an answer for for the uk.

reply to post by NavyDoc


he lay in wait and shot one in the back as they escaped, makes him real upstanding huh? it was overkill, we dont have the death penalty for burglars and if we did he sure aint judge, jury and executioner.... checks and balances and all that
he may have been at the end of his tether and made a very bad choice rather than being a raving maniac/murderer, but he's no hero or role model on how do do owt.
why do guns make some people act so big and macho?

Just goes to show what a waste of time the star and flag system actually is on this website. This clown here that represents probably less than 5% of the UK population gets 88 flags by a bunch of American Gun nuts because it vindicates their views on Guns in America. Despite the fact that what the OP says is factually inaccurate and does not represent the majority view of the UK. How sad.

Originally posted by michael1983l
Just goes to show what a waste of time the star and flag system actually is on this website. This clown here that represents probably less than 5% of the UK population gets 88 flags by a bunch of American Gun nuts because it vindicates their views on Guns in America. Despite the fact that what the OP says is factually inaccurate and does not represent the majority view of the UK. How sad.

Having said that, there is no such thing as the collective wisdom of individual ignorance, so we may be able to discount the brainwashed majority without excessive trauma.

Take Congress for example, do they seem bothered by their 9% approval rate?

This 'clown's' opinion interests some of us, just as we couldn't care less about the majority view in the UK. Find yourself another thread if you need a box of tissues to confront thinking which diverges from the safety of the collective ignorance you feel so comfortable with.

Or try Ritalin, seeing as you don't have a gun permit to worry about.

Originally posted by D377MC

Originally posted by michael1983l
Just goes to show what a waste of time the star and flag system actually is on this website. This clown here that represents probably less than 5% of the UK population gets 88 flags by a bunch of American Gun nuts because it vindicates their views on Guns in America. Despite the fact that what the OP says is factually inaccurate and does not represent the majority view of the UK. How sad.

Having said that, there is no such thing as the the collective wisdom of individual ignorance, so we may be able to discount the brainwashed majority without excessive trauma.

Take Congress for example, do they seem bothered by their 9% approval rate?

This 'clown's' opinion interests some of us, just as we couldn't care less about the majority view in the UK. Find yourself another thread if you need a box of tissues to confront thinking which diverges from the safety of the collective ignorance you feel so comfortable with.

Or try Ritalin, seeing as you don't have a gun permit to worry about.

edit on 18-1-2013 by D377MC because: (no reason given)

Talk about ignorance, what you guys ignorantly seem to disregard is the fact that mass shootings are all but extinct in the UK since we took the collective action of banning hand guns. We are very happy with that fact too, if you want to take this persons view as a pearl of wisdom just because it happens to back up your opinion on gun control in the USA then more fool you. I am saying this clown in the OP does not speak for me or most other Brits and I am also saying that I can sleep at night knowing that I am not a vindicate of a lethal weapon that will be used to kill some innocent person at some point.

Originally posted by michael1983l

Originally posted by D377MC

Originally posted by michael1983l
Just goes to show what a waste of time the star and flag system actually is on this website. This clown here that represents probably less than 5% of the UK population gets 88 flags by a bunch of American Gun nuts because it vindicates their views on Guns in America. Despite the fact that what the OP says is factually inaccurate and does not represent the majority view of the UK. How sad.

Having said that, there is no such thing as the the collective wisdom of individual ignorance, so we may be able to discount the brainwashed majority without excessive trauma.

Take Congress for example, do they seem bothered by their 9% approval rate?

This 'clown's' opinion interests some of us, just as we couldn't care less about the majority view in the UK. Find yourself another thread if you need a box of tissues to confront thinking which diverges from the safety of the collective ignorance you feel so comfortable with.

Or try Ritalin, seeing as you don't have a gun permit to worry about.

edit on 18-1-2013 by D377MC because: (no reason given)

Talk about ignorance, what you guys ignorantly seem to disregard is the fact that mass shootings are all but extinct in the UK since we took the collective action of banning hand guns. We are very happy with that fact too, if you want to take this persons view as a pearl of wisdom just because it happens to back up your opinion on gun control in the USA then more fool you. I am saying this clown in the OP does not speak for me or most other Brits and I am also saying that I can sleep at night knowing that I am not a vindicate of a lethal weapon that will be used to kill some innocent person at some point.

You don't need MI5 organizing mass shootings and the media chipping in like drama-queens because they have already removed your guns. It's that simple.

Here on the other hand, the drama is in full swing because removing our guns is high on the agenda right now. it's that simple.

As far as my interest in the OP's opinion, it stems from my interest in people who awaken to the truth of matters despite being constantly drip-fed lies. You on the other hand are uninteresting. When I'll feel the need to know your opinion I'll just switch on the BBC.

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

he lay in wait and shot one in the back as they escaped, makes him real upstanding huh? it was overkill, we dont have the death penalty for burglars and if we did he sure aint judge, jury and executioner.... checks and balances and all that

he may have been at the end of his tether and made a very bad choice rather than being a raving maniac/murderer, but he's no hero or role model on how do do owt.
why do guns make some people act so big and macho?

They don't, other than on the television. Again, how can one "lay in wait" in their own home? Sure the guy was off his tether after being victimized numerous times and got ready for the next set of criminals. In the US, we do not call that "laying in wait" we call that "being prepared to stop crime."

A hero? Nope, not at all. A citizen driven to the end of his rope, understandibly, by a society that mollycoddles criminals and did nothing to protect his home? Yep.

When one breaks into another's home, intent on criminal act, the one responsible for whatever happens is the one doing the breaking in. They forced that issue on Martin by violating the sanctity of his home and could have easily avoided the entire situation by not being criminals. Until we blame criminals for their actions and the results of said actions, crime will never go down.

reply to post by D377MC


You just cannot see the wood for the tree's can you. I am happy to form my own opinions thank you very much and I do not change that opinion if I find it falls in line with the majority just so I can say that I am not part of the sheeple. Denying ignorance is a two way street, denying what is spoon fed to you by the media is great as long as what you are being spoon fed is inaccurate. But at the same time denying ignorance involves having to accept that some things that you see and read are also truths.

If you think that your government is behind these mass shootings as you indicate in your previous post then you are living in cloud cookoo land mate.

Originally posted by NavyDoc

Originally posted by skalla
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

he lay in wait and shot one in the back as they escaped, makes him real upstanding huh? it was overkill, we dont have the death penalty for burglars and if we did he sure aint judge, jury and executioner.... checks and balances and all that

he may have been at the end of his tether and made a very bad choice rather than being a raving maniac/murderer, but he's no hero or role model on how do do owt.
why do guns make some people act so big and macho?

They don't, other than on the television. Again, how can one "lay in wait" in their own home? Sure the guy was off his tether after being victimized numerous times and got ready for the next set of criminals. In the US, we do not call that "laying in wait" we call that "being prepared to stop crime."

A hero? Nope, not at all. A citizen driven to the end of his rope, understandibly, by a society that mollycoddles criminals and did nothing to protect his home? Yep.

When one breaks into another's home, intent on criminal act, the one responsible for whatever happens is the one doing the breaking in. They forced that issue on Martin by violating the sanctity of his home and could have easily avoided the entire situation by not being criminals. Until we blame criminals for their actions and the results of said actions, crime will never go down.

Yes. Blame the criminals not the guns.
The progressives have a hard time connecting the dots.

Bill O'reilly has a better solution. Have tougher penalties and longer prison terms for
criminals.

Originally posted by Seede

TextYeah. But if you get attacked with a sponge you're less likely to die than if you get attacked with a knife. And if you get attacked with a knife you're less likely to die than if you get attacked with a gun. There's even a guy above who seems to want guns legalised so he could shoot people who mugged him, conveniently ignoring that he would probably dead if they had used a gun. Which they might well have if they were more widely available.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

@ Junior Disco

Being a dinosaur myself (getting on the road to ninety), I am more aware of what you are saying than at any time in my life. My mother was ninety two years old and was beaten by a gang of youths for fun. As a result of that beating she died in the hospital. That was some years ago. The youths were never prosecuted because of minority status. We called it political correctness.

My contention is this. I have carried a revolver for a great number of years and have never had to use it in my defense but when my mother was beaten to death I almost lost all reasoning in self restraint. Even though I knew of these youngsters and their whereabouts I held my peace but if I had been at her side I would not have held myself in check. This is what gun control is all about. The men and women who are well trained and educated in firearms will most always show fairness in usage.

The problem most people have is that they do not understand that a law abiding citizen will always think before using a weapon. The criminal will not think and does not care. Now if you will firstly disarm that criminal then I will put my weapon down also. But to ask me to put my weapon down and not enforce the criminal to do likewise is grossly unfair and stupid. I would never agree to a proposal such as that. That is the issue that I consider.

Now this does not include only a gun. A knife is a most horrible way to die and at times more painful than a bullet. I would rather face a gun than a knife or a razor. Till you have seen the results of both then you should consider these effects upon flesh. We are not discussing an armed invasion here. We are discussing self defense.and I believe that is the issue.

I'm sorry to hear about what happened to your grandmother and am glad you exercised restraint. But I disagree that a law abiding citizen will always think before using a weapon. There just isn't time, often. At the Tucson shooting for example the guy who arrived just after (iirc) admitted he was 'very lucky' not to shoot an innocent person.

I'm amazed you would rather face a knife than a gun. If we had a duel and you had to choose weapons would you choose a knife and let me have a gun?

reply to post by D377MC


Yes, but you miss my point. One of the key arguments gun advocates use is that an armed citizenry would be able to resist invasion or tyranny. Not so much, I think.